Last Hour of Flight Restrictions

I remember now in 2004 or 2005 visiting the US Federal Reserve Bank in Philadelphia. Though tourists were only allowed to go into the front lobby to view the exhibits, we had to pass through an enclosed booth, where we stayed for 10 to 15 secs. It is now obvious that that was an early full-body scanner that is now being installed for airports.
 
Photoshop? - plenty of tools available.

I know , Alan, but what I meant was...Shouldn´t the Feds have first ascertained who was the one on the model photo first? Not having been able to contain the leakage of their "model" ?¿ makes this caution seem more necessary.
I hope fellow posters don´t take offence, but the Feds screwed up big time:(
 
I know , Alan, but what I meant was...Shouldn´t the Feds have first ascertained who was the one on the model photo first? Not having been able to contain the leakage of their "model" ?¿ makes this caution seem more necessary.
I hope fellow posters don´t take offence, but the Feds screwed up big time:(

That's asking a bit much from the FBI I think. May be another round of sensitivity training is required in Washington? (or wherever the Feds HQ is).
 
That's asking a bit much from the FBI I think. May be another round of sensitivity training is required in Washington? (or wherever the Feds HQ is).
Thank you for your understanding. HQs in Quantico. Read too many mysteries I think...:LOL:
Things like these make people lose credibility in some iconic institutions.
Same can be said about the 8 CIA members killed in Afghanistan, I think.
 
A dumb question: Why are we so worried about security on planes and forgetting about cinemas, theaters, malls, stadiums, queues fior the buses, stations...etc etc?

In addition to the impact on other air travel that Alan mentioned, there are other reasons a jet airliner is a particularly sensitive potential target. Because of the particular situation (hundreds of people located thousands of feet aloft inside a thin aluminum tube), it requires only one bad guy, no exotic materials, and only a little explosive to kill a lot of people. More importantly, if a terrorist commandeers an airplane and flies it, he's in control of a tremendously powerful missile. With thousands of gallons of flammable liquids aboard and a mass of 300,000 lbs that can reach and be flown into any one of thousands of vulnerable locations at a speed of several hundred miles per hour, it's no overstatement to say that a hijacked airliner is a weapon of mass destruction.
 
True. But to take control of the airliner and use it as a missile requires flight skills. And having the tank full means that it must be outward bound, or coming from somewhere close, not incoming from a faraway country with a tank 1/8 full. The modus operandi of 9-11 may not work again because we know about it. What we don't know worries me more.​
 
True. But to take control of the airliner and use it as a missile requires flight skills. And having the tank full means that it must be outward bound, or coming from somewhere close, not incoming from a faraway country with a tank 1/8 full. The modus operandi of 9-11 may not work again because we know about it. What we don't know worries me more.​
I think the major difference is that the response to a hijacking has changed 180 degrees. No more "just go along with the demands and let authorities work on it." The cockpit door is now secure, and almost every passenger on the plane knows his/her life depends on stopping a hijacking before the lunatic gets in there.

BTW, American Flight 11 (struck the North Tower of the WTC) had about 10,000 gals of fuel aboard, which is less than 1/3 full, and was enough to bring that structure down.
 
here's a wierd one...on the way home from vegas in las vegas int'l, i was waiting in security line. up comes an apparent TSA employee...passing up all the security checks, metal detectors etc...he walks right by it all with a duffel bag in hand....any one else see a problem with this?
 
here's a wierd one...on the way home from vegas in las vegas int'l, i was waiting in security line. up comes an apparent TSA employee...passing up all the security checks, metal detectors etc...he walks right by it all with a duffel bag in hand....any one else see a problem with this?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? This is always a problem with security, one that never seems to be addressed very well. I guess we're just lucky the TSA employees are so well vetted for quality and integrity. Also, since they are so well paid there won't be a problem with bribery. :mad:
 
What I really meant was that there are plenty of normal daily situations where a lot of people gather and there is no way to control their security or prevent any attempt against them...
 
I pretty much agree with Vincente, it seems to me that the terrorist would be much better off, focusing their energy on attacks outside of the airlines.

I remember a movie/book Black Sunday IIRC, where they blew up a Blimp during the Superbowl, which I thought would a truly terrifying event.

It seems me that any sporting event or something like a rock concert which has a lot of people packed into a small space would be a good target. I think is also vital that there is TV or film coverage of the activity so that gruesome footage of the aftermath can be widely distributed is also critical.
 
So...let me get this straight. The guy is angry because his coworkers laugh at his 'shortcomings', so he commits assault and it becomes headline news.....:uglystupid:

They call it thinking with the wrong, er, ...well, you know.:whistle:
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom